User talk:Asrghasrhiojadrhr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – sgeureka t•c 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Welcome. Before you make changes to MOSes, it is general practise to discuss it on the talkpage first. I have therefore reverted your edits to the MOS. Feel free to drop by the talkpage however. :-) – sgeureka t•c 06:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people (including me) spend a lot of time editing articles that gets reverted, but that is the price of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. New editors are reverted most often because they haven't quite developed a feeling for editing, but they generally learn quickly, so don't feel saddened by this setback. You can still access your edits in the page history (also accessible via the "history" tab at the top). I already linked the talkpage above, it is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (also accessible via the "discussion" tab at the top). – sgeureka t•c 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Either way, please discuss MOS changes on the talkpage first. – sgeureka t•c 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Hiragana

Thank you for experimenting with the page Hiragana on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username concern

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: It could been as confusing by some members of the community. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Thank you. Rudget. 10:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

O this is quite a random username i randomly typed.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me second Rudget's concerns, since this random name creates confusion. Please change it as described above. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh, confusion, how?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't distinguish you from Asrghwsertyeawtrearte;) Seriously, in a worldwide project there may be many strange ones, but complete gibberish or random ones are often even blocked to enforce an alternative, where there is a better chance of remembering it. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Aw, come on there are many names that are similar.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, by now i've personally almost learned it...So enjoy editing...If anybody else rises it, give it a thought, though. Thanks, --Tikiwont (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I see this issue has been raised before but let me add in my request too. Please consider changing your username to a more recognisible form. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The name is in violation of WP:IU as a confusing username. It is hard to type for people trying to communicate with you. Please change it using the above mentioned links. -- Alexf42 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Are meant to be precise - see -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summary - please use talk pages for lengthy comments - thanks SatuSuro 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29&diff=196164595&oldid=195836106 - is not acceptable - cheers SatuSuro 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sturm 08:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing disambiguation group header styles. Your edits are becoming disruptive, and you have failed to reach consensus either on the individual dabs or on the Manual of Style page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival

Great work on the table! Do you mind seeing if you can get the images to spread in a more pleasing way? Right now there's a bunch of images at the bottom with no accompanying text. Feel free to remove images; they're not essential. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Parameters Possible?

An arbitrary string of text? What is an arbitrary string of text?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An arbitrary string of text is any sequence of characters, for example this sentence. But that's not really important; the point I'm trying to make is that yes, there are ways to make a wiktionary template take an unlimited amount of definitions, but a) it's not in my opinion a useful or practical feature to implement, and b) it results in a template that's harder to use. If you like I can create a draft wiktionary template to demonstrate the example I gave earlier. --Muchness (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes please and thank you.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a temporary template called User:Muchness/Wiktionary-demo. To use it, type {{User:Muchness/Wiktionary-demo|Type your definitions here}}, which displays on the page as:

Look up Type your definitions here in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


So, for example, to link to the definitions for council and counsel, you'd type: {{User:Muchness/Wiktionary-demo|'''[[wiktionary:council|council]]''', '''[[wiktionary:counsel|counsel]]'''}}, which displays as:

Look up council, counsel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


And you can keep adding an unlimited number of definitions, like so: {{User:Muchness/Wiktionary-demo|'''[[wiktionary:one|one]]''', '''[[wiktionary:two|two]]''', '''[[wiktionary:three|three]]''', '''[[wiktionary:four|four]]''', '''[[wiktionary:five|five]]''', '''[[wiktionary:six|six]]'''}}, which displays as:

Look up one, two, three, four, five, six in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


I hope that makes things clearer? --Muchness (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was no trouble. The templates you mentioned have limited numbers of parameters and work the same way as {{wiktionarypar}} – {{main}} has a maximum of 10 and {{see also}} has a maximum of 15. {{multidel}} is an example of a template that has unlimited values; like the example I gave above you have to type it all out. --Muchness (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonconstructive edits to Command & Conquer et al.

Recently, you made a long string of edits to Command & Conquer, Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, and Command & Conquer: Generals among others. It is generally frowned upon to make more than one edit in a row. Rather than making as many as nine edits in a row (as you did with Command & Conquer), it is much better to just make one. If you are wanting to "save your work" you should copy an article into a text editor and paste the revision onto Wikipedia when you are done. Moreover, I don't quite understand what your purpose was in editing these three articles (and presumably the others). When comparing your work to the last version by another user, there were very few differences, mostly just paragraphs being rearranged and headers being messed with. All in all, I feel that your edits to these pages were nonconstructive and very near the point of vandalism. While we encourage you to make edits to articles, please only make edits if you have constructive edits to make. And please only submit one edit to an article rather than multiple. Thunderforge (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Looking through your history of edits, it seems that you just enjoy changing articles, and don't give any thought at all to whether your changes are an improvement. In many cases I've looked at, your edits make articles worse rather than better. Some examples:

  • [1] your new heading is less informative
  • [2] a pointless change that is also less correct, since the surrounding text uses male pronouns.
  • [3] you don't mean "inline"; you mean "online", but there's no reason for the edit in any case. The real distinction between the sections is that one is footnotes and the other is a reference.
  • [4] "Exofrance" isn't a word, and even if it was the old heading was far more useful and informative.
  • [5] a pointless edit; the person in question was a man, so why replace "man" with "person"?
  • [6] you replaced informative headings with useless and uninformative ones.
  • [7] "police people" is not a term that's used in the English language. If you wanted to change "policemen" (which was unnecessary), you should have used "police officers".
  • [8] and [9] again you replace useful headings with a less-informative ones.

In short, please try to confine your edits to ones that you are sure are both correct and also an improvement. Don't just fiddle around with articles for the fun of changing text. RedSpruce (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of the Wikipedia code

I undid your latest moves on the

This moves are a completely onaccaptable violation of the Wikipedia code because these were my draft version:

Which were in my user space. You copied them without any reference and without any talking about this. Even in Wikipedia under GFDL there are rules.

I guess you are not aware of how Wikipedia works, otherwise you would never have done this. I really feel robbed and rapped here.

You might have the idea that Wikipedia is one happy family, where you can do whatever you like. But there is concensus there there are different spaces in Wikipedia with different authority.

  • The Wikipedia article space
  • The Wikipedia article talkspace
  • The Wikipedia:Community space under the Wikipedia:Community Portal
  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject spaces: the subpages behind the Wikipedia:WikiProjects
  • and the userpages and all the sub user pages: with I call the "userspace".

In all these spaces other rules apply about authority. No what is wrong with what you did:

  • You copied a GFDL text pretending it was yours without mentioning the source which is even under GFDL a copyright violation.
  • You took this from a subuserpage, where the user has all the authority
  • There was a very good reason why the text was there, because I was only a draft version where I was still working on
  • Just copying without any reference realy feels like intelectual theaft and rape.

Now I undid those two moves and hope you understand my concerns -- Mdd (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you even care? -- Mdd (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know your articles existed until I came across a bluelink in systems science to your article General systems theory which included a bluelink to History of systems theory. I did not know who put the bluelink in the articlespace, was it you? From how I saw it, I did not mean to rob you in any intention. I was motivated to improve wikipedia. How I saw it was why this article wasn't even in the articlespace in the first place. You are totattly free to start, set up, & work on an article in articlespace. I don't know why you don't.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The draft version was in my user space. You must assume you are not totattly free here. We do work under the GFDL rules. We also have the rules in Wikipedia: even tons of rules. One of those rules is that you don't mess with someone's userpage. Since the article were in my userspace, the same rules apply there. -- Mdd (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't just change the lay out of articles

I happen to notice, that you have been altering the lay out of articles. I just referted about ten of your moves here. There are all kinds of standards in these article, which you also violated. Please don't continu in this way. Violating Wiipedia standards by the way, is a rather distructive way of learning about the. Please try to keep it contructive. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User name block

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Bearian (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)